Friday, March 31, 2006

I just bumped into a blog post where Hanson of the Hoover Institution takes the war critiques to task. He summarizes the main points of the critiques and then proceeds to demolish them. These are the eight empty vessel arguments of the anti-war people, he claims:

1. Saddam was never connected to al Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11.2. There was no real threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. 3. The United Nations and our allies were justifiably opposed on principle to the invasion. 4. A small cabal of neoconservative (and mostly Jewish) intellectuals bullied the administration into a war that served Israel’s interest more than our own.5. Saddam could not be easily deposed, or at least he could not be successfully replaced with a democratic government. 6. The architects of this war and the subsequent occupation are mostly inept (“dangerously incompetent”) — and are exposed daily as clueless by a professional cadre of disinterested journalists.7. In realist terms, the benefits to be gained from the war will never justify the costs incurred.8. We cannot win.

Then he offers his counter arguments. They can be summarized as follows:

Saddam might not have behind 9/11, but he was connected to Al Qaeda, like Germany and Japan, so different from each other otherwise, were part of an alliance.

The WMD worries were real. It does not matter that they were not found, but more than one intelligence agency, including Iraq's own, claimed they were there. They were not there, but Iraq could quickly have produced them: Saddam had the resources and the intent.

The UN opposition to the war lacks ground since the UN was embroiled in the food for oil corruption scandal. Europe also had business interests in Iraq. So they too had little moral ground from which to speak.

Some say it was Israeli security that was the number one reason. But Bush, Cheney, Rumsfelf, Rice, Powell, none of them are Jewish, and our ambassador in Iraq and a top Commander are both Arab.

Instead of a quick victory, things could have started much uglier. And the sacrifice has been worth it for the tens of millions that have now voted there.

There has not been another 9/11. The Arab world is witnessing a democracy tsunami across the region. Europe is finally waking up to the Iran threat. If there has been ineptitude, it has been on the part of the western media.

Leaving Iraq now would be like walking out of World War II in 1943.

As to we can't win, that is still in the future. But we have a strong military, we will win for sure.

I must say I appreciate the attempt at comprehensivity on the part of Hanson. Other than that the work reads like so much propaganda, rather than a disinterested academic analysis.

Saddam, 9/11, Osama

Saddam and Osama never were allies. Actually Saddam was a secularist, Osama dreamt of a theocracy in Iraq like everywhere else. It is not possible Saddam might have liked the idea. If anything they were competitors to the same land, though never directly.

40% of Republicans believe Saddam was behind 9/11. That is mindboggling. Republicans like Cheney have cynically used 9/11 to great effects.

Weapons Of Mass Destruction

You have to start at the end. None were found. The intelligence agencies were so far off the mark, they intended to go to the moon, and ended up on Mars. The error was huge. But the error was that the agencies did not come up with a categorical statement that the WMDs did not exist.

What is worth noting though is there was tremendous White House pressure upon the agencies to cut the corners to show certainty where none existed so as to bolster the war cause. The decision to go to war preceded the marshalling of the intelligence.

A Small Neocon Cabal

It is so obvious a handul of neocons proved decisive. There might not have been a Jewish lobby, and I don't hear many anti-war folks suggest as much, but there sure was a neocon lobby, too married to their strong on defense ideology, too addicted to campaign contributions from the military-industrial complex that stands to make money every time there is war.

The process by which the decision to go to war was reached sure was faulty. War got seen as the weapon not of last resort, but first. Intelligence was marshalled with a clear intent to make a particular case. The congressional vote was to exhaust the non-war options first, but Bush misread it on purpose.

Democracy

Toppling a dictator was not the stated goal. That came much later, after the dictator had already been toppled, and no WMDs were found.

This is important to point out.

And if the idea is to spread democracy, the Iraq way would be a ridiculous way to do it elsewhere: $240 billion, 2300 American lives, 30,000 Iraqi lives and counting. This model can not be replicated. The US would go bankrupt, many more Americans would die, the draft will have to be reinstated, and you will end up killing larger numbers of people with the pretext of coming to their aid.

Incompetence

This part is so true. Katrina proved it beyond doubt.

Benefits

It is good Saddam is gone. But has the cost been worth it? And what about the other Saddams of the world? Why did the Iraqi Saddam deserve the favor?

There has to be a non-violent, progressive way of spreading democracy in the rest of the Arab world, a war with communications technology way, one that organizes the Arab Americans in places like New York City to be cutting edge soldiers for democracy rather than demonizes them.

Deciding On Withdrawal, Defining Victory

Mission Accomplished was not victory, we came to learn that rather fast. But the American troops do have to come home. So what is victory? A stable, democratic Iraq? An Iraqi army that can fend for itself?

The withdrawal has to happen sooner rather than later.

It is not about if Americans can win in Iraq. It is about if Iraqis can. That is extra true in the rest of the Arab world.

Is it possible to design a $10 billion war with communications technology method to "invade" another Arab country, say Egypt or Saudi Arabia, the Arab Americans taking the lead? I think yes.

The point being the Iraqi misadventure can not be replicated. There has to be a better model.

“Ironically, after learning today that Jack Abramoff will spend nearly six years in prison, the Senate passed a lobbying reform bill that does little to change the culture that allowed him to abuse the system in the first place. The Senate has missed a once-in-a-decade opportunity to clean up the way we do business in Washington. This bill fails to create an independent enforcement mechanism to investigate misconduct by members of Congress. It fails to stop lobbyists from currying influence by flying lawmakers on private jets. And it does nothing to prevent members of Congress from negotiating for jobs with the very industries they’re supposed to regulate.”

So it goes the way of Washington. Obama's first major effort in the Senate did not carry the day. It is like health care and the Senate. It is a big issue for the Americans across the country, but the Senate never talks about it. There is this democracy disconnect between the people and the rulers. The kings on Capitol Hill don't like the idea of oversight, if it is an oversight over them.

They don't vote it down, they water it down, give it a good name and then vote yes. So it was yes to lobbying reform if you read the surface. It is like Bush and the No Child Left Behind Act. He names it no child left behind, and then leaves most children behind. Bush weakens regulations for industry and calls it a Clearn Air Act. Some thing like that. Dems be learning the game.

Obviously Obama is more popular in the country at large than in the Senate. Call it a democracy disconnect. But it is more the bill than Obama.

Maybe the Dem bosses who got Obama take the lead on this one knew this is how it will end up. Let Obama taste some humble cake.

Let the Senators vote the way they do, and let the people know.

Maybe Obama can learn from McCain's efforts for Campaign Finance Reform. McCain did not succeed on first attempt.

Cleaning up democracy is an ongoing business. Beyond lobbying reform is the bigger issue of public financing of elections. Private financing creates many distortions.

It took an Enron to get campaign finance reform passed. Abramoff is not enough, it seems. Wait for a bigger scandal.

Sunday, March 26, 2006

EUleaderswantallimmigrants to take an entryexam Times Online, UK could eventually be extended to all 25 EU members ..... aims to ensure that immigrants accept Western values ...... a new integration contract that the ministers from Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland proposed ..... contract would test their knowledge of Western values, and of the host country’s language and main institutions ...... was first raised by Nicolas Sarkozy ........ possibility of introducing English language tests for any immigrant wanting permanent residence in Britain ...... the growth of parallel communities that feel alienated from the West...... This month the Netherlands began applying some of the world’s toughest entry laws, requiring potential immigrants to take language and culture exams and study up to 375 hours in their home country before emigrating....... To prepare them for Dutch liberal values, they will also have to watch a film with scenes of a topless woman and featuring gay men kissing.

There should be designed a course or many courses that all leaders at all levels of government in all of Europe, as well as all journalists at all levels of media, especially in editorial rooms, will be required to take that will teach them the difference between hate speech and free speech, to teach that hate speech might not be illegal, but it sure is wrong, and not something to be protected and be proud of. Those who practice and protect and express pride in hate speech are inherently inferior as human beings. That should be taught.

The cultural fault lines between the West and the Muslim world are being further exacerbated by these ignorant Europeans.

The topic is not that the Arab world does not have democracy, and it needs to get it. Of course democracy is good for all countries in the Arab world. But instead of seeing lack of democracy as a happenstance of socio-economic development, or lack thereof, rather, these Euros see it as an entire group of people being inherently inferior.

The Dutch example is obscene. Is that "movie" out to suggest that there is not a single Dutch who is homophobic? I can't imagine that being true. So why single out Arabs? Forcing people to watch movies is an expression of a supposition that perhaps that entire crowd is inferior.

There are obvious racist suggestions being made.

The western democracies are inherently inadequate. They need to expand. And that task is as acute as the task of spreading democracy in the Arab world. The west's reluctance/inability/hardships when having to become more accepting of cultural diversity should help the west understand why spreading democracy and the associated values is not easy for Arabs either. If free people can not do it, what chances have the people under the thumb of oppressive regimes often suppoted by the west?

Europe has sinned. These tests are designed to humiliate a people who took offense at humiliating cartoons that were clearly offensive and overtly racist.

This is precisely the wrong way to be waging the so-called War On Terror. White Europeans are out exhibiting their ignorance, if not outright prejudice, which obviously is deep and widespread and infects the highest levels of power.

And this twist only further exacerbates the Middle East conflict. The wounds are real. They need to heal. But instead these people are adding fuel to the fire.

My ancestors are from India, they stayed there, I came to America. Bill Frist's ancestors, on the other hand, came from the moon. That immigration was so thorough noone lives on the moon no more. But memories be fleeting. Frist does not remember. He has now come forth with a highly hostile bill that would make immigration a crime. This guy is nuts. It is like making your own birth a crime, if you could only go back.

Bill Frist is part of the crowd that fantasizes every day to turn abortion into a crime. Now they have turned their guns on immigration.

This is reason for the pro-choice and the pro-diversity forces to seek common ground so as to scuttle Frist's presidential aspirations. The guy had no chance in the first place. His future now only got dimmer.